Returning to the etymology of office,we find that the term has Latin roots andis defined as a major administrative unitin some government or a subdivisionof some government department. Theword has primarily been used in pub­lic administration (Merriam­Webster,2007), which is still the case in manygovernments, for example, post officeor patent office. The 14th­century wordbureau has roughly the same definition,for example, competition bureau. Inthis research, we adopted the followingdefinition of a PMO:An organizational body or entity assignedvarious responsibilities related to the cen­tralized and coordinated managementof those projects under its domain. Theresponsibilities of a PMO can range fromproviding project management supportfunctions to actually being responsible forthe direct management of a project (Proj­ect Management Institute, 2008, p. 443).

This definition is preferred over the

2013 definition (Project Management
Institute, 2013), which may limit some
of the PMOs empirically included in this
research.

Methodology

This section describes how data was
collected and analyzed based on the
conceptual framework illustrated in
Figure 1. In social science, a quantita­
tive approach is usually associated with
a positivist paradigm—where reality is
considered to be out there and ready
to be observed in a unique and stable
state. Following this approach, the typi­
cal methods are based on hypotheti­
cal–deductive methods. Conversely,
scholars in management (includ­
ing project management) who have
oriented their research in a practice
perspective go away from this hypo­
thetical–deductive methods, in which
context is not taken into account (e.g.,
Cicmil, Williams, Thomas, & Hodgson,
2006; Drouin, Müller, & Sankaran,

2013). This article presents the resultsof a questionnaire and, as such, involveshypothetical–deductive methods. Thisresearch, however, is not intended toprovide prescriptions for project man­agement in a government; rather, itaims to describe a government realityconsidered as a very partial elementof a much more complex reality. Thevalue of this research is to generate newscientific knowledge to help understandthis complexity by proposing a catego­rization based on the types of projectsin order to nurture reflection amongdecision makers on the organizationaldesign for the management of multipleprojects. In this sense, the methodologyused here is more easily understoodwhen situated within a multidimen­sional continuum of research projectsbetween the quantitative and qualita­tive methods proposed by Teddlie andTashakkori (2009). Using the threedimensions proposed by these authors,in the concept sphere, the qualitativecomponent relates to the subjectivepurpose and the aims of this researchto generate understanding (not confir­mation). This research is more likelyquantitative in the sphere of concreteprocesses with numeric data and statis­tical analysis. In the areas of inferenceand explanation, this research leansmore on the qualitative side, with moreinductive and subjective inferences.

Data Collection Strategy

This research took place within a
national government, where it had a
unique opportunity to provide some
input for reflective practitioners on how
to significantly enhance the quality of
the management of multiple projects
undertaken in government departments
and agencies. It was managed with the
help of professionals and managers in
an administrative unit responsible for
the management and performance of
the government apparatus as a whole.

To meet the needs of the govern­ment, the questionnaire developed byHobbs and Aubry (2007) has been usedafter being adapted to the specific con­text of this government setting. Thiswas conducted with the participation ofmembers of GP­Québec, a communityof practices dedicated to public man­agement and with managers and profes­sionals in the government. For example,the question on the positions of respon­dents was modified to adapt to cur­rent classes in the government. Otherquestions were added to capture spe­cific needs, for example, questions onportfolio management. A pretest wasconducted with four respondents; theircomments led to some minor adjust­ments and these answers have not beenincluded in the database. The question­naire was in the French language only.Many targeted respondents were notfamiliar with the project managementvocabulary; various actions have beentaken to account for this in our researchand ensure confidence in the quality ofanswers. First, the term ‘project man­agement office’ (or PMO) was avoidedto facilitate a general understandingamong a diversity of respondents ingovernment departments and agen­cies. The unit of analysis was definedas any entity responsible for managingmultiple projects and performing func­tions related to these projects, and thusconsidered a PMO. Second, a guide toanswering the questionnaire was devel­oped, in which definitions and explana­tions were provided. Third, and lastly,information sessions were organized forall government departments and agen­cies to which the basic concepts wereexplained and the main sections of thequestionnaire were reviewed.

The initial goal of this research was
not to create a sample of entities deal­
ing with multiple projects in this gov­
ernment but rather to represent them
fully in order to create a census. The
method used is not probabilistic, but
based on judgment sampling (Govern­
ment of Canada, 2013). Participating
entities were targeted with the specific
aim of studying entities dealing with
multiple projects. Invitations to answer
the questionnaire were sent by email
to the secretary­general of 50 depart­
ments and agencies. Many entities can
coexist in each single department and
agency, but only one respondent was